Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 11 Jun 2021 13:08:15 +0000 | From | Quentin Perret <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] sched: Make uclamp changes depend on CAP_SYS_NICE |
| |
Hi Qais,
On Friday 11 Jun 2021 at 13:48:20 (+0100), Qais Yousef wrote: > On 06/10/21 15:13, Quentin Perret wrote: > > There is currently nothing preventing tasks from changing their per-task > > clamp values in anyway that they like. The rationale is probably that > > system administrators are still able to limit those clamps thanks to the > > cgroup interface. However, this causes pain in a system where both > > per-task and per-cgroup clamp values are expected to be under the > > control of core system components (as is the case for Android). > > > > To fix this, let's require CAP_SYS_NICE to increase per-task clamp > > values. This allows unprivileged tasks to lower their requests, but not > > increase them, which is consistent with the existing behaviour for nice > > values. > > Hmmm. I'm not in favour of this. > > So uclamp is a performance and power management mechanism, it has no impact on > fairness AFAICT, so it being a privileged operation doesn't make sense. > > We had a thought about this in the past and we didn't think there's any harm if > a task (app) wants to self manage. Yes a task could ask to run at max > performance and waste power, but anyone can generate a busy loop and waste > power too. > > Now that doesn't mean your use case is not valid. I agree if there's a system > wide framework that wants to explicitly manage performance and power of tasks > via uclamp, then we can end up with 2 layers of controls overriding each > others.
Right, that's the main issue. Also, the reality is that most of time the 'right' clamps are platform-dependent, so most userspace apps are simply not equipped to decide what their own clamps should be.
> Would it make more sense to have a procfs/sysfs flag that is disabled by > default that allows sys-admin to enforce a privileged uclamp access? > > Something like > > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_uclamp_privileged
Hmm, dunno, I'm not aware of anything else having a behaviour like that, so that feels a bit odd.
> I think both usage scenarios are valid and giving sys-admins the power to > enforce a behavior makes more sense for me.
Yes, I wouldn't mind something like that in general. I originally wanted to suggest introducing a dedicated capability for uclamp, but that felt a bit overkill. Now if others think this should be the way to go I'm happy to go implement it.
Thanks, Quentin
| |